Who can serve as the local school district's representative on an IEP team for a child with disabilities? Does the role have to be filled by a particular position (like a principal), or does the school district have flexibility?

Plain-English summary

Brad Sneeden asked who could serve as the local educational agency (LEA) representative on a child's individualized education program (IEP) team. The AG said the State Board rule properly implemented North Carolina law and was consistent with the federal IDEA rules. The LEA could designate a qualified staff member, including but not limited to a principal. Its discretion should take account of the child's needs and the purpose of the meeting.

The rule required three qualifications: the representative had to be able to provide or supervise specially designed instruction, know the general curriculum, and know the LEA's available resources. The opinion says these qualifications track federal law. The federal interpretation cited by the AG allowed a qualified special education administrator, supervisor, teacher (including a speech-language pathologist), principal, or other administrator to serve. It excluded the child's own teacher from serving as the agency representative in the example it quoted.

The cited federal interpretation also said the representative should be able to ensure that IEP services would actually be provided and “that the IEP will not be vetoed at a higher administrative level.” The person selected should have authority to commit agency resources. For a child needing limited services, a qualified special education teacher or speech-language pathologist other than the child's teacher could have that authority. Extensive services might require a key administrator. Continuing-placement meetings might be more routine than initial-placement meetings.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Check current federal and North Carolina special-education rules before choosing a representative for a present-day IEP meeting.

What this means for you

School districts

Choose a representative who meets the three stated qualifications and can commit agency resources for the particular child's services. The opinion leaves the choice of staff member to the LEA, tempered by the child's needs and the occasion for the meeting. It does not require or forbid designating the same qualified person for multiple meetings.

Parents and IEP team members

The opinion identifies the representative's qualifications and resource authority. It does not decide whether an IEP is invalid if the selected person lacks a qualification, or prescribe a particular challenge or remedy.

Common questions

Q: Does the LEA representative have to be the principal?
A: No. A principal can serve if qualified, but the opinion says the LEA may designate another staff member who meets the requirements.

Q: Can a special education teacher or speech-language pathologist serve?
A: Yes, if qualified and able to commit the resources needed for that child's IEP. The federal example quoted by the AG excludes the child's own teacher from the agency-representative role.

Q: Does every meeting require a senior administrator?
A: The cited federal interpretation says a key administrator might be needed for a child requiring extensive services. It says continuing-placement meetings may be more routine than initial placements and might not need one.

Q: Did the AG prohibit a district from usually sending the same person?
A: No. The opinion leaves the designation to local discretion while directing the LEA to consider the particular child's needs and the occasion for the meeting.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion explains that G.S. § 115C-113(f) requires IEPs to be developed in conformity with federal law and regulations. It quotes the federal representative qualifications from § 1414(d)(1)(B)(iv) and the matching State Board rule, .1504B.(1). It relies on Appendix C to 34 C.F.R. § 300.344 for examples of appropriate staff members and for the representative's authority to commit resources.

Citations

• G.S. § 115C-106(b)
• G.S. § 115C-110(a)
• G.S. § 115C-113(f)
• 34 C.F.R. § 300.15
• 34 C.F.R. § 300.344
• .1504B.(1) Procedures Governing Programs and Services for Children with Disabilities (May 1998)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/lea-representative-on-the-iep-team/

Original opinion text

December 1, 1998

Brad Sneeden
Deputy Superintendent
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2835

Re: Advisory Opinion Regarding LEA Representative on the IEP Team; G.S. §§ 115C-106(b), 115C-110, 115C-113(b) & (f)

Dear Brad:

By letter dated November 10, 1998, you requested an opinion as to who can serve as the LEA Representative required to be part of the IEP Team under special education law and regulations. It is our opinion that the current State Board rule on this point properly implements G.S. §§ 115C-106(b), 115C-110, 115C-113(b) & (f), and that the rule is consistent with IDEA and its regulations. This State Board rule permits the LEA to designate, as the LEA Representative to serve on the IEP Team, a person — including but not limited to a principal — who meets the enumerated qualifications. LEA discretion to designate must, however, be tempered by considerations of the extent of a given child's needs and of the particular occasion triggering an IEP Team meeting, as illustrated in the federal regulations discussed below.

Article 9 of Chapter 115C establishes, as State policy, the provision of a free appropriate publicly supported education to every child with special needs, such education to include a system for identifying, evaluating, and implementing an individualized educational program for each child's special needs. G.S. § 115C-106(b). It is also State policy that State regulations and practice with regard to children with special needs conform "with relevant federal law." G.S. § 115C-106(b)(viii). Pursuant to G.S. § 115C-110(a), the State Board of Education "shall have general supervision and shall set standards, by rule or regulation, for the programs of special education to be administered by" the SBE and by LEAs.

More specifically, G.S. § 115C-113(b) requires LEAs to conduct an initial multi-disciplinary diagnosis and evaluation of a child who may have special needs "based on rules developed by the Board" and G.S. § 115C-113(f) requires LEAs to "prepare individualized educational programs for all children found to be children with special needs." G.S. § 115C-113(f) expressly mandates that the IEP "shall be developed in conformity with Public Law 94-142 and the implementing regulations issued by the United States Department of Education." Finally, G.S. § 115C-113(f) provides that the IEP is to be developed (and later reviewed when necessary) in meetings of designated personnel, including "a representative of the local educational agency who shall be qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of such children." Under current federal law, the personnel involved in such an IEP meeting are known as the "IEP Team."

The federal statutory enumeration of the required personnel composition for a child's IEP Team includes "a representative of the local educational agency who — (I) is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; (II) is knowledgeable about the general curriculum; and (III) is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local educational agency." Section 1414(d)(1)(B)(iv) of the Act. Further guidance on the intention of this statutory language is found in the IDEA regulations.

Section 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that the IEP Team "means a group of individuals described in Sec. 300.344 that is responsible for developing, reviewing, or revising an IEP for a child with a disability." 34 C.F.R. § 300.15. Section 300.344(a)(1) identifies the LEA Representative as the person having the three sets of characteristics identified in section 1414(d)(1)(B)(iv), quoted in full above. Note 1 attached to § 300.344 mentions that "[e]ither the teacher [on the Team] or the agency representative should be qualified in the area of the child's suspected disability."

The qualifications for the LEA Representative set forth in the applicable State Board rule track the federal statutory and regulatory language, as required by G.S. § 115C-113(f), in the following language:

[A] representative of the local educational agency [shall serve on the IEP Team] who
(a) is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
(b) is knowledgeable about the general curriculum; [and]
(c) is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local educational agency.

.1504B.(1) Procedures Governing Programs and Services for Children with Disabilities (May 1998).

Looking to Appendix C to Part 300 — Notice of Interpretation and, more particularly, 34 C.F.R. § 300.344(a)(1) (App. C) gives some additional illumination on the designation of an appropriate LEA Representative. This federal regulation deals with the participation during IEP meetings of an LEA Representative by stating: "The public agency shall ensure that each [IEP] meeting includes . . . [a] representative of the public agency, other than the child's teacher, who is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, special education." That same federal regulation then provides the following answer to the question: "Who can serve as the representative of the public agency at an IEP meeting?"

The representative of the public agency could be any member of the school staff, other than the child's teacher, who is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities. (Section 602(a)(20) of the Act.) Thus, the agency representative could be (1) a qualified special education administrator, supervisor, or teacher (including a speech-language pathologist), or (2) a school principal or other administrator — if the person is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, special education.

Each State or local agency may determine which specific staff member will serve as the agency representative. However, the representative should be able to ensure that whatever services are set out in the IEP will actually be provided and that the IEP will not be vetoed at a higher administrative level within the agency. Thus, the person selected should have the authority to commit agency resources (i.e., to make decisions about the specific special education and related services that the agency will provide to particular child).

For a child with a disability who requires only a limited amount of special education, the agency representative able to commit appropriate resources could be a special education teacher, or a speech-language pathologist, other than the child's teacher. For a child who requires extensive special education and related services, the agency representative might need to be a key administrator in the agency.

Note: IEP meetings for continuing placements could be more routine than those for initial placements, and, thus, might not require the participation of a key administrator. Appendix C, 34 C.F.R. § 300.344 (answer to Question 13).

As you can see, the extended discussion in Appendix C supports our opinion that the selection of the LEA Representative — under federal and State law and rules — is ultimately a matter of local discretion, although such discretion must of course be exercised consistent with the potential role of the LEA Representative on any particular child's IEP Team. Such informed exercise of local discretion, on a case-by-case basis, is completely congruent with the goals of the IDEA.

signed by:

Thomas Ziko
Special Deputy Attorney General

Joyce Rutledge
Associate Attorney General